I am suprised that you think that there is a contradiction in preparing lunch or dinner and spending time with your children.
And I wouldn't rule out that the food that I prepare might be healthier than food prepared in a canteen kitchen (because of e.g. healthier ingredients).
I think WGA is very obnoxious and changes the terms under which I bought the software.
I want to control at what times my computer tries to access the internet. I find any software that brings up a Zonealarm alert, whenever I start the program, very annoying. And now I have to do the same with WGA every day in the morning after I turn on my PCs or laptop or VM.
In some situations access to the internet costs per KB or per connection. When I bought XP I did not agree that Microsoft can access the internet whenever it feels like and potentially create costs. I already had to enter obnoxious codes for the activation of the software. When I bought the software and I activated XP I felt assured by Microsoft that I own a legitimate version (the WGA terror agrees with my assumption). And I did all I can do to assure I use a legitimate XP (it was expensive, it had all the marks of a legitimate copy and it could be authenticated). If it still is a pirated version then Microsoft and my reseller failed, not I. If activation is not a guarantee of authenticity as promised, why did I have to do it?
So, yes I feel that I am being constrained be Microsoft to validate something that I feel has been validated by the activation and gives me no additional benefit. I had no reason to believe that my version is pirated and nobody else has that reason either. So why do I constantly have to be reminded by a internet access alert that Microsoft has installed software on my computers that I do not want do have on my computers to no benefit of mine at all?
Microsoft Windows XP is a defective product (like most software, including some that I write) that compromises the security of my data and when I get a fix for the defect they demand to install completely unrelated software? And you think that is completely OK? Do you think my customers or the customers of my employers would subscribe to that line of thinking?
I generally think that the special treatment for the software industry giants and also some of the entertainment industry giants is totally unwarranted.
Would you accept Lexmark or HP or whoever to check the type of toner or ink you are using and send that information to their servers, whenever they feel like it? How about having them tell you on what CD player you can play the latest CD you just bought. Or having them demand special players that send information about your CD player to their servers, so they can make sure that you are not using a pirated version of their music? Or a road block by Bridgestone that checks if your tyres are using some special patented manufacturing process that might have been used without their consent? Or the next time you bring back some groceries that have gone bad before the "due date" the supermarket insists on checking your fridge for hygiene? All these things are rather ridiculous from my point of view. What I do not get is why some people accept similar (and sometimes worse) behaviour from Microsoft or Sony or...
Slashdot Mirror
I am suprised that you think that there is a contradiction in preparing lunch or dinner and spending time with your children.
And I wouldn't rule out that the food that I prepare might be healthier than food prepared in a canteen kitchen (because of e.g. healthier ingredients).
I think WGA is very obnoxious and changes the terms under which I bought the software.
...
I want to control at what times my computer tries to access the internet.
I find any software that brings up a Zonealarm alert, whenever I start the program, very annoying.
And now I have to do the same with WGA every day in the morning after I turn on my PCs or laptop or VM.
In some situations access to the internet costs per KB or per connection.
When I bought XP I did not agree that Microsoft can access the internet whenever it feels like and potentially create costs.
I already had to enter obnoxious codes for the activation of the software.
When I bought the software and I activated XP I felt assured by Microsoft that I own a legitimate version (the WGA terror agrees with my assumption).
And I did all I can do to assure I use a legitimate XP (it was expensive, it had all the marks of a legitimate copy and it could be authenticated).
If it still is a pirated version then Microsoft and my reseller failed, not I.
If activation is not a guarantee of authenticity as promised, why did I have to do it?
So, yes I feel that I am being constrained be Microsoft to validate something that I feel has been validated by the activation and gives me no additional benefit.
I had no reason to believe that my version is pirated and nobody else has that reason either.
So why do I constantly have to be reminded by a internet access alert that Microsoft has installed software on my computers that I do not want do have on my computers to no benefit of mine at all?
Microsoft Windows XP is a defective product (like most software, including some that I write) that compromises the security of my data and when I get a fix for the defect they demand to install completely unrelated software?
And you think that is completely OK? Do you think my customers or the customers of my employers would subscribe to that line of thinking?
I generally think that the special treatment for the software industry giants and also some of the entertainment industry giants is totally unwarranted.
Would you accept Lexmark or HP or whoever to check the type of toner or ink you are using and send that information to their servers, whenever they feel like it?
How about having them tell you on what CD player you can play the latest CD you just bought. Or having them demand special players that send information about your CD player to their servers, so they can make sure that you are not using a pirated version of their music?
Or a road block by Bridgestone that checks if your tyres are using some special patented manufacturing process that might have been used without their consent?
Or the next time you bring back some groceries that have gone bad before the "due date" the supermarket insists on checking your fridge for hygiene?
All these things are rather ridiculous from my point of view.
What I do not get is why some people accept similar (and sometimes worse) behaviour from Microsoft or Sony or